CP+ 2013: Interview with Olympus' Toshi Terada

The long wait for the next generation of cameras for Four Thirds may soon be over, suggests Olympus' Toshi Terada, Manager, Product Planning SLR products. He also discusses the role the OM-D has played in increasing uptake of mirrorless cameras in the USA and the future of compact cameras now that smartphones have become many users' cameras of choice.

The progress of mirrorless in the USA

'Market share for mirrorless is increasing in the USA. It's not booming, but it's growing. Now Canon and Nikon have mirrorless products, that will help increase awareness of what mirrorless is and what the benefit is. In addition, the OM-D has become a really big topic of conversation in both the US and Europe. Those two factors are creating a better situation for the mirrorless market,' he says.

'We have three groups of people buying our cameras - OM-D users are mostly people who would have bought a DSLR, then you have users stepping up from compacts and buying PEN models. Then, finally, you have DSLR users who are buying PEN as a second camera. Other manufacturers aren't targeting all those people.'

'DSLR-type users are used to beautiful lenses but we also like to offer lenses for the step-up users - lenses like the 45mm. One of the main reasons for buying a DSLR or mirrorless is the good image quality, including shallow depth-of-field. The kit lens is versatile but to give the shallow depth-of-field you need a fast lens. The 45mm is positioned as a 2nd or 3rd lens, as is the body cap lens. We'd like to offer attractive lenses for both DSLR-type users and step-up users.'

'In Japan, the work to encourage people to buy a second lens has been a success. The 45mm lens has sold well world wide, and in Japan, not only DSLR-type of users, but also Step-up users have purchased it.'

The future of Four Thirds

Building on the promise Olympus has made about continuing to support Four Thirds users, Terada suggests the wait may nearly be over: 'Direction-wise, we'd like to produce products for Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds within this year. Because we have to provide a product for users with SHG and HG lenses. And there are people using E400, 500 and 600-series DSLRs, we have to provide products for them to keep enjoying their photography.'

'For those users AF speed is important and a suitable finder is necessary. And also it needs to be the right size - the benefit of Micro Four Thirds and Four Thirds is compact size. We have to provide those things to benefit those users. One of the benefits of DSLR is continuous autofocus. In this respect, we have to promise total AF performance in future.'

They can be confident about image quality, he says: ''They already know image quality from the OM-D. Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds sensors are the same size, so they can imagine that.'

Where now for compacts?

'Smartphones have had an impact on compact camera sales - especially for affordable compacts. We have to make some kind of differentiation from smartphones, whether that's in terms of image quality, optical capabilities or photographic control,' Terada explains: 'We've shifted to high-value products - long zoom, enthusiast compacts and TG-type cameras that have benefits to differentiate them from smartphones.'

'From a sensor aspect this can mean bigger, but a camera need optics. To have optics with an APS-C sensor, capability cannot be offered. Another format combination is something I can see happening - you need to have something that works size-wise as well as quality-wise. If you consider APS-C, you're never going to make a very compact lens. Maybe 1", 1/1.7" or some intermediate could exist in the future, I can't judge at this moment,' he says, and maintains there's some fight left in 1/2.3": 'the XZ-10 is still attractive - together with a nice lens and imaging chain it can offer a big difference from smartphones.'

In order to keep the good image quality ,the ape-c size sensor is the lowest level in this moment .To Develop smaller lens is easer than improving the image quality by 4/3 system. Olympus an 4/3 system never will be the major.

Maybe 1", 1/1.7" or some intermediate could exist in the future, I can't judge at this moment,' Why not try a fixed lens (prime or zoom) based on your 4/3s sensor so you don't have to develop a new sensor? You got to produce one because plenty consumers don't buy another lens that came with the camera.

I was four months ago, sold my 5d II and never looked back.APS-C (Pentax K-5) appeals to me more. . .And now, in addition to my GH2 (HackVitaliy) for Film, I bought the awesome OM-D E-M5, because I already own this very good lenses.MFT is at a very high level - almost on par with the top-DX Pro Pentax K-5 -at this level it does not matter anymore to the camera, but the photographer

however, K-5 IIs (with Ltd line of their lenses) seems be a cheaper alternative to Lecia in the size and in the image quality such as OM-D E-EM5, but they don't have new technologies bysmartphones/tablets/computers world as Nikon/Canon/Samsung/Sony.

Judging from the output of the latest generation m4/3 cameras (E-M5/E-PL5/E-PM2/GH3), they really aren't that far behind, and they're arguably on par with Canon APS-C.As long as m4/3 doesn't lose market share dramatically, I don't think Oly or Pana will abandon the system. There are obviously lots of people who think the IQ is good enough for them.

You see no added portability, despite the smaller focal lengths and smaller, shallower lens mount?

What is the equally portable APS-C equivalent of a lens selection like the Olympus 12-50, 40-150, and 75-300? (Small bodies for larger formats are easy enough; lenses are the main size constraint.)

Of course there is a trade-off : smaller kit size and weight vs better performance in high shutter-speed/low-light situations, but both alternatives make sense for different people with different priorities. And even for the same person when addressing different priorities at different times: many users of high end gear in 35mm or medium format also have an m43 kit as a lightweight option these days.

Indeed, the attraction of smaller formats, as with 35mm "compact" film format vs medium format, is largely through smaller, shorter, lighter lenses, of smaller effective aperture diameters. Even with MF film cameras, the extra bulk and weight came mostly from the longer focal lengths, with some of that extra length put into the bodies.

And for over a century, advances in resolution (lp/mm) and usable ISO speed have driven an overall trend toward smaller formats that can still match or exceed the low light ability of older technology in larger formats. Meanwhile, larger formats all the way up to 10“x8“ film persist for a smaller, higher level market sector where higher performance is important.

From the sensor manufacturing to the implementation in the camera a change to a circular sensor would be more difficult than using a square sensor that is larger than the lens can cover. Waste is a relative thing, you either waste lens coverage on a fixed aspect ratio rectangular sensor or the other way around waste pixel area. Pixels are not that expensive anymore and in case of the 4/3 lenses used the size of the lenses remains the same.

I can only say that the micro four thirds is really a fine format. At first, in view of the great excitement over FF etc, in reality all formats are FF, i thought that it didn't have a chance but my E PL-2 changed my mind fast.As they improve, in focusing speed for example, they will be even better.

All I want is a new 4/3 body !!!I don't get this obsession with smaller camera bodies! Why would one sacrifice so many good things just for a smaller body? And who is it good for? Snappers and tourists? The 4/3 gear is still more compact than NiCanon DSLR's and the Oly lenses are unmatched!Come on Olympus, give us a good new 4/3 body this year!!!

I do not share this view that one must have huge cameras. It all depends on the type of photography one does, naturally, but this sort of condescencion about tourists and snapshooters is just that, condescencion. I am a retired public relations photographer and now I travel a lot for pleasure. I have totally given up on big cameras. i'm in agreement with you with notion that micro four thirds is really good. I have got shots with the EP L-2 with the kit zoom that are really nice. Presently I'm using the Panasonic LX-7 but it's IQ is not as good but it sort of gets the job done. Mt aim is to be as unobtrusive as possible and sort of not allow the camera to get in the way.I have a blog galatiotophoto.blogspot.com that shows the difference and the high quality of the four thirds system.

I shifted from FT to MFT about two years ago. There are two reasons for this:- I have sold my FT camera but kept a couple of lenses that I still use on the MFT (an EPL2)- The MFT body and MFT lenses can be veeeery compact if you need a "carry around" camera, and the MFT lenses are no slouch (sure, they don't compare to TP lenses..)The only downside of MFT bodies (especially the older ones) is focusing speed. My EPL2 has a great MF-assist feature: it enlages the centre of the image in the viewfinder when I turn the focus ring, but... yes.. a good autofocus cannot be replaced. However, the newest MFT cameras have made a big leap in this direction....

Agree. I don't get the obsession with miniaturization of enthusiast cameras. For snap shots and travel, sure, nobody wants to carry large, expensive and heavy gear, but for serious photography why compromise ergonomics, usability and IQ, just for convenience/weight savings? Nothing worth doing is easy.

I sold my E-5 and felt I gave up nothing as far as IQ goes with the OMD. I did lose two of the finest lenses in the 50-200SWD and 12-60SWD But I feel what I gained makes up for it, and has more potential to make up for it with some of the lenses available that I do not own yet.

I would not mind if 4/3 goes 4/4, a square sensor based on the longest side of 4/3 (or a bit more) and the best sensor stabilisation Olympus offers, OM-D style. A raw format that would have all the sensor data included but some choices of aspect ratios on the camera for other output. No changes to the lenses, there will be severe vignetting on the corners of the square image but at least in RAW development one can select the best aspect ratio - composition within that lens covered disc.

If 4/4 were based on the longest dimension of 4/3, you wouldn't be able to use 4/3 lenses due to the larger image circle required. Still, it would be pretty cool if compatible with 4/3 lenses, even if that meant dark corners. One could easily crop the final image to vertical and horizontals and squares pretty nicely, avoiding the dark corners. Personally, I like the multi-aspect ratio sensor of the GH2. It would be even better if raw could capture all of the pixels, even if it meant missing pixels in the corners.

Talking about square format, how about a Rolley type square format camera so that one could focus on the focusing scree and only manually. That is really a dream. But i like to dream.Seriously. the square format would be excellent. No need to flip the camera, this would be done after the shot. Perhaps some day this will occuss.

The vignetting problem shoudn't exist at all if the sensor was sized to fit within the lens FOV. The square format has all the advantages, possibly surpassed only by the round sensor image. All the usual formats can be cropped from it. If there was an internal masking option, the outside of the frame could be seen as maybe 50% darker. One could dial their own preferred format, and take (record) just the chosen part of the total image...Now, if only people who make such decisions would be willing to give it a thought... Then we could perhaps hope to expect the "new, revolutionary" All Format Camera.

I'm not sure why everyone's so obsessed with square sensors, look at your camera's screen and think about what would happen if you turned "portrait mode" on with your square sensor, your preview would be absolutely tiny on the landscape screen! With the regular way of shooting portrait (turning the camera) you still get to use your entire screen/EVF area to compose.

OldArrow, if you shrink the square to fit without vinetting than any regular aspect ratio would actually be a much smaller crop than the current 4/3 size. Square is efficient, but the horizontal is actually narrower than 4:3, and 16:9 is even worse (you'd chop off even more of the top/bottom) leaving it much smaller.

The only way around this (and have a more square sensor), is to have it oversized, so that the horizontal (and vertical) are as big as you need it to be for 4:3/3:2/19:9, which inevitably would be the 16:9 version.

But it would be neat, shoot raw, get lots of vignetting, but you also have the choice to crop post shot either horizontal or vertical.

Well, since this would be a new concept, of course it would have to be made so that no part of the sensor is shaded / vignetted. I'm not saying it has to be adapted to current cameras. After all, a 1:1 sensor would also require 1:1 monitor(s). Sensors are getting better by the day (and not necessarily bigger for that), so I think it's feasible, even with the current set of lenses (i.e., no need for larger lens output FOV).@Joeslv... if you cropped 1:1 to, say, 4:3, your monitor would show just 1:4 less of the image (1:1=4:4), or 1/8 from each side. But every format would have that maximum longer side being equal in both landscape and portrait aspect. If you "dialled" a 4:3 portrait mask, it would be the same size as a 4:3 landscape. Mind, there would always be a possibility to shoot full-surface 1:1 and crop later, from that single shot, to any format imaginable.People shooting 120 roll film formats (6x6) almost always had to crop for publishing, but that's no problem at all.

OldArrow, Square format is the opposite of a new idea: it is an old idea that has been gradually been abandoned ever since innovations like eye level prism viewfinders made it easy enough to rotate the camera for verticals, and thus make more efficient use of the film or sensor by reducing the amount of cropping needed for most images.

Why do people get so excited about ideas that are old, well-known, and have been tried and then abandoned by most camera makers and photographers?

Sorry Mt Terada, there is NO life left in the antediluvian 1/2.33" sensor. It's way past it's used by date, so let's stop propping it up. 1/1.7" should be the new 1/2.33" and 1" should be the new 1/1.7".

After noting what people get with their iphones. one must wonder if big cameras will only be needed for specialized work only and ttally not needed unless for showing off. I have made this point many times over in my blog.

I have to agree with you. I think that many people who post on dprreview don't print, or print very little. The prints I get out of my Canon SX230HS (1/2.33) are excellent up to 8x10. The small sensor gives me long reach and something that fits in my pocket.

m43 prints are better, but not much, especially at the sizes I print at. I'm keeping my GH2, though. I like the lenses I use.

FF prints are probably better still, slightly, but do they carry around the equivalent lens lengths that I do? In the real world, I suspect I can sometimes make better prints with a 1/2.33 sensor than FF could make, because I am better able to frame the picture

They should update the 4/3 lenses for m4/3 to native m4/3 with just a innovative adapter. Keep the small body size. Then all m4/3 users will buy the adaptor and start using (buying) the 4/3 lenses too.

They only reason 4/3rds lenses don't work well is the focus motor isn't optimised for CDAF, which can't be fixed with an adapter unless it's an SLT type. PDAF pixels will probably appear on m4/3 sensors in the next couple of years tho...

I and many others who have all the best oly hg and shg lenses willcontinue to buy 4/3 dslr even though they may be larger andheavier as long as low light iq and af speed keep up with thecompetition. So many exquisite Zuiko af lenses , zoom or not, completely unmatched--the cameras need to catch up.

peterbee, I can't agree more with you. All I want is Olympus to come up with a good new 4/3 body! I love all my 4/3 lenses and I don't care about the smaller body sizes, which , I think, only benefit tourists. The 4/3 gear is still more compact than NiCanon DSLR's and the Oly lenses are unmatched! Come on Olympus, give us a new body this year!!!

The sheer amount of various formats makes one think about why. What really dictates the image formats today? Cinema? Can't be. TV? Which among all the various sizes? Books? Newspapers? Surely not. Almost every paper-reproduced image has to be adapted to any of these formats.So why don't they all agree that the best photo imaging format would be square? It exploits the lens FOV in the best possible way. It gets rid of side-up camera holding. It produces images easily cropped to all ratios or purposes. It allows internal masking to facilitate framing for every photographer's need...No go. We get to buy whatever the analog era left behind, as if it's some stone-hewn universal law.Ditto, mechanical mirrors in digital cameras - obsolete from the first digital camera onward. Ditto, camera shapes; although there is no more film to stretch between the casette and the take-up roll. Ditto, God forbid, an universal lens mount.Funny, but the whole thing is supposed to cater to camera users...

A square is not an efficient use of sensor or image space unless you plan on keeping every image as a square. If you want your final image to be a rectangle, then it makes sense to start with a rectangle format to begin with. It's really not that complicated.

@ T3, some of us live in the real world and can benefit from the musings OldArrow has to offer. personally I would like the option of any crop from an image, or a large 1:1 image from my tiny m43 camera.

I have long maintained that they should adopt an oversize square (1:1 aspect ratio) sensor, then allow the user to select the crop. Provided the sensor adequately covers the projected image circle, you could offer everything from e.g. 3:1 through to 1:1 to the photographer (in either landscape or portrait orientation). EVFs would facilitate this.

The 'unused' areas of the sensor could be re-purposed or simply ignored.

Also, if you store the entire sensor data in raw format you could offer the photographer the option to re-frame later -- or even produce an 'oversize' image using the normally unused sensor area.

There are many interesting possibilities. Due to the conservative instincts of the industry I would expect a cellphone maker to try this first, unfortunately.

Our visual field is rectangular, that's why its better than a square. Any square that fills our visual field horizontally will exceed our visual field vertically. If you start with the square and always have to crop, then you end up using less of the lens than if you start with the rectangle.

If we're going for maximum use of area covered by the lens, then the 'best format' would be a circle. Why not advocate for a circular format?

@spencerberus... Our visual field is oval, and the best right-angled cutout from that is rectangular - the reason for most usual forms of cinematic and TV presentations.But other formats, based on technologies over time, came into everyday use (newspapers, books, signs), that's why we need the vertically oriented formats too.The square (1:1) RECORDING format offers the largest possible image dimension in all aspects to crop from.You're right, and I have mentioned the circular format elsewhere here, but this is more like SF for traditional minds, while 1:1 existed from the first photo ever made. We are not used to round images, but we can accept square format and all the rectangular versions easily. My guess is, people would accept it, and it would efficiently put an end to a raather useless bickering over advantages of 2:3, 3:4 etc., as it would contain all of those, and more.

A circular sensor is not feasible due to how they are fabricated -- sensors must be rectangular -- and the electronics involved -- sensors are read in such a manner that a circular array of pixels would be problematic.

The best compromise is to use a square sensor that covers as much of the image circle as possible -- the more coverage you get, the wider (horizontal) or narrower (vertical) the aspect ratio possibilities become. Panasonic have variable aspect ratio cameras that use this idea in a "horizontal" form only: but have not continued this in the GH3.

Square image sensors have the disadvantage of 1. wasting a lot of pixels in the corners that aren't covered by the image circle (or if it is wasting the extra sides of the image circle) and 2. not fitting with the shape of cameras with their nice big landscape screens. I mean just imagine trying to compose a portrait shot on a landscape screen, your preview would be tiny!

Square sensors would be a great waste of resources on sensors and in the preview screen and viewfinder ... and so would be "Golden Ratio" sensors of about 8:5 shape.

I am not sure why this myth of the Golden Ratio as the ideal shape for paintings, drawings or photographs persists despite the massive evidence to the contrary in the shapes actually chosen by artists quite consistently over the centuries. The most common choice of artists are about 4:3 and 7:5, and the vast majority of "still rectangular artworks" are in the range from 5:4 to 3:2. (Movies are a different issue; panoramic landscapes are an outlier, not the norm.)

The Golden Ratio is perhaps a nice shape for abstract forms like in architecture, but not when the actual subject matter of an image dictates the framing.

The advantages offered by a square sensor outweigh unused pixels, in my view.

It also makes little difference what shape the rear display is if we are talking about using an EVF. The EVF would also be square, and could be set to put shooting information in the non live image areas. (The rear display will be 'the wrong shape' for many shots, regardless of what aspect ratio is chosen.)

If the raw data captured the entire sensor area then you also have the option of changing your mind about the chosen aspect ratio during processing, and could do things such as shift the used portion of the image around. For example, if you have a 1:1 aspect ratio portrait shot that doesn't look quite right, 'unlock' the crop in the raw and re-compose it.

Yes!a square sensor and instead of 21:9 or 16:9 we should have both pictures and videos as stereoscopic 18:9 OR - if you insist - say...HDR 18:9. HOW? WHY?Well, 18:9 is 2:1, which means that the upper half of the sensor and lower half on the square sensor would then form the wide picture either bringing a stereoscopic 4K video in 4096*2048 pixels or ~8 Mpix (8.4M) photo with HDR. If you need Nikon style D800 that would be 8192x4096 or about 32 Mpix (binary) or rather 33½ MpixWhat do you think folks?(I know: 1080 movies are going to be clipped to 1024)

Seems to me that m43 might be the best strategy adopted so far in the business. I am probably buying into it one of these years. Three wishes: 1. dump that stupid faux slr retro design, both oly and pana! 2. Issue m43 versions of zuiko 12-60mm and other +++ glass. 3. Fully articulated screen on omd successor (along with new design) and most other models both oly and pana.

He's right. If your interested, and there's one which suits you, get it.Each time I've bought a digital camera I've done so when a model comes along which satisfies a checklist of requirements. I write a list in descending order of must have priority and the cut of is "might be useful one day".For me the Lumix G5 was that camera back in October 2012.

Something like my GH2 (or GH3 now, haven't tried it) might be what you're looking for. The "faux slr retro design" is what made me buy the camera. You'll notice that the "compact style" or "rangefinder style" cameras don't have included viewfinders. If Olympus had offered something with a built-in viewfinder when I bought, I would have went with Oly, because the jpegs are better, and I don't need the GH2's excellent video.

Right khunter my number 1 alternative right now is the gh2 despite the reactionary design in a progressive camera. I will just have to look more at what is in front of the camera than at the camera itself, rather recommendable anyhow. Oldarrow above pretty well sums up my thinking about camera design. However, the market economy just doesn't work that way. Actually I think more about the lenses, which to me, constitute the main part of the system. There are some "able bodies" to put behind them and I might even live long enough to buy another one if something interesting turns up. Or maybe I will just go on living happily with my Sony R1 and iPhone. I do have some trouble justifying the 1500 + euros it will cost to replace it with similar range+quality system let alone extending it.

Right bobbarber my number 1 alternative right now is the gh2 despite the reactionary design in a progressive camera. I will just have to look more at what is in front of the camera than at the camera itself, rather recommendable anyhow. Oldarrow above pretty well sums up my thinking about camera design. However, the market economy just doesn't work that way. Actually I think more about the lenses, which to me, constitute the main part of the system. There are some "able bodies" to put behind them and I might even live long enough to buy another one if something interesting turns up. Or maybe I will just go on living happily with my Sony R1 and iPhone. I do have some trouble justifying the 1500 + euros it will cost to replace it with similar range+quality system let alone extending it.

Their perception of where the battle is right now, being: "it can offer a big difference from smartphones"pretty much explains the recent 1/2.3" xz10 introduction (and Fuji's small sensor mega zooms as well).

Perhaps listening to what users want would better help compete, expand market share... and the smartphone wouldn't even be an issue.

@bobbarberAnd for music, most people listen to Justin Bieber or Katy Perry, that doesn't mean that real musicians are wasting their time. This is a site for photographers, not snap-shooters. What the majority of regular people use for photos is only relavent from a business perspective.

Proper cameras are not uncommon, what's uncommon is the thought that snapping a pic with a phone is photography and that a smartphone is a camera.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that the Olympus camera's take on the future of the camera industry was directed at the users of dpreview. I need to get my head out of the sand and realize that it's about me, me, me, I mean us, us, us!

@marike6 regarding compacts, Mr Terada was giving a business reply - "we are focusing on 3 sub markets, and here is the business reason why".

"The thought that snapping a pic with a phone is photography" may be uncommon to the readership of DPR, but it is VERY common to the public at large. The readership of DPR alone cannot keep any of the camera makers in business.

How difficult would it be to make 4/3 lenses work on a mirrorless body? What are the hurdles exactly? Do other manufacturers have the technology patented?

I have 4/3 lenses, but I am not wedded to the idea of a mirror like other users. Don't get me wrong, I like mirrors, but the EVFs are better for many things (although never as pleasant to use). Anyway, I'd like fast autofocus back, that's all. I'd settle for an OM-D type camera with phase detect autofocus implemented in some way.

That wasn't my question. I've owned a converter for years. Everyone on this thread who owns 4/3 DSLR lenses wants native support on a 4/3 camera. The problem is that 4/3 lenses use PDAF and m43 cameras use CDAF, which means that the autofocus is lowed down considerably using the adapter. Other manufacturers have managed to put PDAF in mirrorless. My question was along the lines of whether or not Olympus can do that too, are they blocked by patents, etc. Thanks for your help.

I agree with bob. It seems crazy to have all those nice 4/3 lenses going to waste. Nikon 1 is a young system, but one thing Nikon did was they made certain that they offered a solid adapter with full AF for F mount lenses. And it's not uncommon to see a Nikon shooter with a small 1 series camera because of this. And part of the reason why is compatibility.

Been a Nikon DSLR user for 6 years with 2 bodies. Switched to m43 and not looking back. For the majority of us who do casual photography, m43 can't be beat with small bodies and small lenses. Never enjoyed photography more than I have with m43.

Nothing really clear about the 4/3 future. First Olympus should keep their recipe for colour treatment. That's why I keep that E520 body with all its sluggish AF issues and general image softness : WB and colours I see no equivalent anywhere. E620 image treatment is not as good. Epl-2 is more "digital" like and no viewfinder except that horrid EVF you keep losing if you don't watch it. I checked the OM-D but I found it too small . Ergonomics are a major issue for me and this OM-D body is not comfortable at all, bad handling, sharp angles, a hard feeling. I don't like this all M4/3 line : too small and yet too big to offer the convenience of pocketable compacts like the ZX1 or Canon S95. I want something with the supposed quality of the OM-D in a body the size of a E510/520, and use my superb 4/3 Zuiko lenses , should have also an excellent optical viewfinder and good manual controls. Comfort, Mr Terada, comfort. If Pentax and Nikon can do it, why not Olympus ?

I understand that you can't divulge company secrets, but it's always good to hear that Olympus is working on something to be announced soon. Are you really going to support your 4/3rds lens owners? My vote is for a slightly larger OM-D with improved speed and ergonomics that works seamlessly with both micro lenses and 4/3rds zooms. I'd like a grip with high capacity battery (maybe BLM-1s) and dual SD slots. 1/8000. 5-axis IS. Yes please!

Can't wait. Please keep the messages coming, even if they are vague. May good things come to those who waited!

"Because we have to provide a product for users with SHG and HG lenses. And there are people using E400, 500 and 600-series DSLRs, we have to provide products for them to keep enjoying their photography."

That is talking about two different groups of people not one. SHG and HG lens users and people using E400, 500 and 600-series DSLRs. It's that 'And' that is important.

I converted 2010 from E420 to a Nikon D90. Although the Nikon is much better in IQ and DR, the e420 was more fun to operate and had better color rendering (blues and greens). If a E7 would be in cool retro design I might come back.

I assemble my own computer and most of the parts are made from Taiwan, Indonesia, Singapore, and Philippines etc. My Samsung plasma tvs are made in Mexico. I try my best to avoid made in China products. You have no idea how many floor standing electric fans that still look new but don't work at all that we have in the basement. I installed a made in China Haier air-conditioner and the same story. No more for me. Enough bad experience with made in China products. Olympus Om-D is not cheap. I get more value with Nikon D7000. Just my opinion.

Nikon D7000 is made in Thailand. That is problem with Haeir AC I installed. 12,000 BTU and does not cool the room so you turn it up so high and the noise goes up too. You are awake and cannot watch your tv because of the noise. The other thing that I did not want to mention because it is not related to photography is my dogdied of kidney failure because of dog snacks made in China.

Same as I hate those made in US cars too, I had very bad experience with US cars , when I drove it did not move, no re-sale value, not reliable. I have a Haier frig. it runs for over 7 years without any problem until now. You guys were poisoned by the propaganda. All you frig at home were made in China, only the brand is not, check the back of the frig or air-conditioning.

I got rid of the US made washing machine because it was rusting & falling apart in its drive mechanism & it was supposed to so well made & rugged (ha!), but I like several things that were made in China (but not all). There are some great violin makers there that turn some great instruments (as well as others that turn out cheap crap).

It does not matter in China or Thailand ..., we pay enough or too much for iPhones made in China. My A65 made in Japan had more hardware glitches than A33 made in Thailand or what so ever, and neither of them are as good as my Olympus DSLR made in China ... Did you just pay half price to what you would pay for a made in USA air condition?Beside material, it is the engineering design quality ... then the manuafacturing workmanship... Asians making pretty much everything these days since we are not "cheap" enough :-( What you might need avoid is "Design by China. Thailan ...", although they are getting better.

@ ChrissChanhate? races?the only one talking about people was you!we were talking about equipment...OH NO! My camera is a "paleface" or "honky"...can the outer shell be changed to a beautiful (and more professional looking) black?ANDNokia Lumia phones comes in colors white, black, red, yellow or are they actually Caucasian, African, Native American, Oriental

Wow, was this translated, or does he speak English? I ask because I don't know who to doff my cap to for the elegant, creative parsing & word usage..might I say "slight of tongue"?

I mean, just look how many people here now think that a new 4/3SLR body is now back on the table!

In reality, a close reading seems to confirm the earlier suggestions that the body he's talking about is a mirrorless 'hybrid' that's mostly designed for m4/3, but will finally work well with legacy 4/3 lenses.

APS-C has been developped because FF cameras where to expensive for consumers market.But even APS-C cameras are still very heavy and big. 4/3 or m4/3 cameras offered reduced size and weight and in addition the possibility to purchase cheap long-focus lenses because of crop facror. But at the end of the day, even with fast lenses, DOF with 4/3 lenses is always to much and it is impossible to get a nice bokeh.I regret my OM1, OM2 and all 24x46 zuiko lenses.The day you will put on the market a FF camera of same quality and compactness of OM film series and zuiko lenses, I will immediatly resale my Canon D6 for the new OM, no doubt!

A slew of hyper-fast primes (.95-1.2) are out & on the way at pretty affordable prices. It's clearly much easier to produce fast glass in this smaller form-factor, thus mitigating the so-called 'disadvantage' of m43.

And all this bokeh talk is clearly just posturing & format-defense. I mean, portraits comprise probby 75% of the shots where people want shallow DOF. Do you really think more than 5% of DSLR users have portrait lenses faster than f2.0...or even f2.8?? I'd peg it at 2%...most of which are professionals for whom larger formats make more sense for many other reasons.

And those f1.8-.2.8 DSLR portrait lenses are more $$ than the f0.95-f1.4 m43 equivalents...so what's your beef?

The only legitimate gripe is w/zooms, where m43 cannot match the DOF of a fixed f2.8 35-70, on a FF DSLR. (and I don't see an f1.4 12-35 for m43 coming too soon). But are the bokeh-purists using f2.8 zooms? Again, maybe a tiny fraction, at most

The biggest problem with 4/3 DSLR's is that they did not provide a size advantage despite a smaller sensor than APS-C. The smallest DSLR ever was the E420, but it was only fractionally smaller than a Pentax K-x, the second smallest DSLR. The E620 is only slightly smaller than a K-30. The E5 is gargantuan compared to the K-5. Yet in each case the APS-C performance is significantly better.

"But at the end of the day, even with fast lenses, DOF with 4/3 lenses is always to much and it is impossible to get a nice bokeh."

a) It is impossible to get *the same bokeh as FF sensors* with the same EFL and aperture. That much is true.

b) It is impossible to get creamy bokeh at short FLs, that much is true.

But ... it is not impossible at all to get "nice" bokeh. You just have to get the right combination of subject to background ratio, aperture, EFL, and camera position ... it is a myth that this is "impossible." Of course, perhaps it is for you, who can say.

@audiobomber: "The biggest problem with 4/3 DSLR's is that they did not provide a size advantage despite a smaller sensor than APS-C."

That was the reason for the creation of the m4/3 standard and mirrorless cameras. The G3 and G5, for example, are very small dslr-like cameras without the mirror. Having just dumped my D7000 for the G5, I can tell you unequivocally that these cameras are close enough to a match in capability for most people (action shooters probably need to look elsewhere) and that they are a great deal smaller and lighter. I don't think it makes sense to complain about an obsolete and supplanted system, when the end game is out there and slowing eating APS-C's lunch.

Gentlemen, I agree, "impossible to get a nice bokeh" is not the right wording, I should better say, it is not so easy... As a personal experience, I noticed that using a FF with 24-105 f/4, I had not problem of visible nasty details behind the faces and at the opposite, I very frequently had the problem using any compact ixus or G3.You may reply, that it is because I am not well trained or of course compacts have very small sensors... OKBut it is what happen to many people and even specialists.If you have a glance to picture P4210009 made by DP for the review of OMDM5 fitted with ZD45-1,8, you will see a portrait of a bold guy who left ear can be confused with the ear of a person behind him.Therefore, my conclusion is that in everyday shooting life, if I use FF, I stick to my past expereince of Ag 24x36. At the opposite with smaller sensors, I have always nasty details behind my subject to be cancelled. Of course, if you are not disturbed to get 3 ears on a portrait ...

@ audiobomber & Alno, not the size of the camera - you need a good gripbut the size of the lenses!Duh!Who wants to lug around expensive and heavy huge tubes while the advances in technology give you a superb smaller "film" with enough light gathering properties to allow the same quality as old full frames.

Interview could have been with a politician. Covered almost all his bases....1/2.33, Phones, FF, APS-C etc.....The truth is that most formats will now give acceptable quality for 8x10 prints, but many never print these days. My boss just bought a FF Nikon but only ever looks at his images on the screen. The key now is versatility, size, usability etc.Oly is doing very in M4/3.....

Keep that ZD glass viable, please. It's the reason I bought an OMD - to get a state of the art sensor behind those excellent zooms. Except for the somewhat sluggish AF, the combination is terrific. With the grip installed, it even handles decently. The EVF? not an issue. It's a bit different, but it is not an impediment to good composition, and it has a few very handy features that OVF's don't have.

The bonus is, take off the adapter and grip, put on a tiny and high quality M43 prime like the 45 1.8 or 75 1.8, and it turns into an ultra portable system that still rivals the better DSLR's in quality and capability. The same IQ, at a fraction of the weight and bulk.

Fix the slow ZD AF, add 1/8000 shutter speed, maybe make the grip a bit larger with a few extra buttons, but keep the OMD form factor, and you have a dual purpose system that competes with both the micro mirrorless and the APS DSLR's. Smaller and capable with fast ZD zooms, tiny and capable with fast MZD primes.

There are a number of improvements and perhaps inovations needed in the MFT camera systems that would cause a consumer like myself to abandon APS-C for MFT. Please consider long lens users also. We need the 250 - 400 mm range covered by f4 lenses. (500 - 800 mm FOV) Please address the macro/micro field. Olympus has a wonderful history supporting photograpers for macro (1 to 3x), but MFT is lacking lenses. The spectacular 90mm f2 Olympus macro lens made for MFT would be very welcome, even if manual focus, but with full electronics (aperature+AF confirm). A product to seriously consider would be 75 -150 f2.8 macro zoom. (150-300mm FOV) No market competition for such a lens. Please provide ability to use batteries simultaneously in grips for heavy lens group focus and cold weather (same voltage more amps). Please consider Pen/PL/PM viewfinder mount on side (RF style), not top, so I can use flash and VF togehter plus more comfortable holding.

Except this is about the four thirds system for which Olympus has many very good lenses; it's the Olympus DSLR system, don't confuse it with the m4/3rds system. That the new camera may not have a mirror is really the only questonl.

I may be confused - often am but if so, why is he 'discussing the role of the OM-D"? And the first title was: "Progress of Mirrorless in the USA". The mirror box 4/3 may have another generation left (everyone has dropped it except Olympus). The advent of Phase detection on sensor and rapid refresh EVFs should pretty much kill the need for more mirror box (read large) cameras with small sensors. Olympus needs to re-issue their fine 4/3 lenses as MFT and lead the pack - just IMHO. Competition can be fierce and Panasonic is pushing hard - just see their latest offerings.

None of the options are really serious for the long haul. They'll compromise the FF until the degree of distinction between a camera phone and a CSC or MILC is negligible. The manufacturers are facing reality but their tone is an admission of a difficult task to turn the market share back in their favor. There may be if not already evident a break up in the market. Sensor makers will be like computer chip makers. Bodies like boards. I'm sure WiFi and GPS are not being reinvented. It will streamline to profitability in order to maintain viability or they'll be bought up by the phone manufacturers. Eventually they'll hit a wall of consumers who would prefer a single gadget and the cameras will be down to FF or phone. But I agree optics will be the next challenge followed by improved software. Today there's no distinction except a button on top or the size of the screen. No one is original.

m43 (or mirrorless in general) is the new "APS-C", the next mainstream thing.

Front line has moved to enthusiast compact, exemplified by the RX100. I'm hopeful that this year we would see more of the cameras to compete against it. And probably I would finally dump my interchangeable lens camera for good.

Otherwise, let me repeat what I have said 2+ years ago: Oly, talk is cheap, show us the cameras!

Problem is that there is probably not many users left which still actively uses their E-4x0, 5x0. May be different for 600-users and diehard E-1, E-3 and E-5 users.Many have may have made the switch to other dslrs which offered better high iso and Dr and maybe even switched to Olympus m4/3 or some other mirrorless system. The future in general for Dslrs aint looking very bright with the mirrorless system beginning to catch up in AF-speed which many of them still lagged behind.

Well here is one that uses an E-420, E-620 and E-5. Whatever any new system may or may not hold, if it makes full use of the beautiful line of four thirds mount Zuiko digital lenses, that is the bottom line. There are many strong systems out there, and I for one would rather see Olympus and the major manufacturers not abandon the world of photography to the smartphones and the like.

I think the first camera maker to create a camera part that leverages the smartphone properly wins. E.g. Build a M4/3 mount which lets you slide in an iphone or ipod touch or certain popular android handsets and provides an API. You get wifi, cellular, gps, and gyro for free, you allow third parties to replace your horrible UI (applies to all camera makers), you get a far superior display, GPU acceleration for software, and a fast multicore CPU. You can charge more than you would for a camera body that includes its own CPU, touchscreen, etc. (until competition heats up) while actually making higher margins.

Why hasn't this happened already? Because the camera makers are too stupid and the serious camera business is frankly too small for Apple to bother with.

Canon's new sensor technology (currently under development) is their chance to get back on top. But as we see they are almost too late and Nikon has it's sh*t kickers on and is ready to kick some sh*t....

It's pretty much Canon vs Sony right now. Sony's sensors appear to be in every serious non-Canon camera from Leica to Pentax to Fujifilm to Nikon. (Sony even dominates smartphone cameras.) There are minor variations — color filter arrangement, microlens design, bayer filters, but that's all fiddling at the margins.

Now it's interesting that Sony seems to be doing so well technically while doing so poorly financially. But I don't think Canon's strategy should be to hope Sony goes broke, because then anyone (Samsung, Apple) might buy its camera division.

Why on earth would Olympus abandon m4/3 anytime soon? And switch to NEX? Is that grounded in anything other than wishful thinking or homespun market analysis?Olympus still have a larger market share in mirrorless than Sony, at least in their home market Japan, and m4/3 is so far a success story. And with the renewed interest in Olympus that followed the introduction of the OM-D line, what would be the point of abandoning the system?

@Revenant Olympus got bailed out of its current woes by Sony. NEX is ultimately a better mount than M43 — scales to FF, doesn't result in bodies any bigger than M43 bodies. Sony needs lenses, Olympus needs sensors and a path forward. So I can see it happening. (If Olympus started churning out Zuiko NEX lenses I think it would make a lot of money.)

Some problems with that idea: Many of the Olympus four thirds system lenses are amazing, where else can you get 150mm F2 (FF 300mm) lens with near Leica optical quality? You can't pretty much no matter what monies you spend.And that's not the only very special lens for that system.

Whereas Sony hasn't bothered doing more than one good lens for the Nex system, and that lens retails for 1100usd. Samsung, Panasonic and Olympus have all paid attention to lens quality with their respective mirrorless system and Olympus then has these amazing lenses for the nonmicro 4/3rds system.

So more power to Olympus for sticking with this good system, but yes it could use some newer sensor gear.

Sure Zuiko Nex lenses could sell well, but they're not exactly cheap to start up making.

I've went all micro now and he says this.... Luckily i still keep my 14-54mk2 as a just in case.

they got it quite right in ergo and button placement with EP2 and EP3... not quite with the EM5. I prefer the flush mode dial on the EP2 and thumb dial as I have a tendency to knock the EM5 dial while changing lenses.

Yes Mr. Terada, I can imagine an E-520 with the E-M5 sensor. That would be something I would even pre-order. Our 45mm lenses wouldn't fit, but I also have the wonderful 50mm macro, and I'm still considering getting the 12-60mm and 50-200mm HG lenses which would be perfect on a body the size of E-520 to E-30, but not so on the much smaller and lighter OM-D or even Pen lines. Thanks for your thoughts.

Funny no one is discussing the XZ-10 :)IMHO they took a too small sensor.To provide better quality than an iPhone 5 they need something like 1/1.7" or bigger. 1/2.3" can't shoot significant better photos than a good smartphone camera (not to mention the 808 PureView)

Well, a 1/2.3'' CAN have a significantly better output than a cameraphone sensor.Anyway, seems that you're not considering many important advantages of the XZ-10 over a cameraphone:1) real flash vs led flash2) optical stabilizer3) optical zoom (and, for the XZ-10, FAST optical zoom!)4) significantly better lens quality5) manual controls and buttons (including lens ring)6) faster and accurate AF, faster workflow in selecting options, shooting modes etc7) AF assist lightTake this things together and you'll have a package a cameraphone can't absolutely match. It will allow you to take better photos in many situations where a cameraphone simply won't be capable enough. There's not only sensor size in a camera... like there's not only the engine in a car.If you're happy with a cameraphone, if you don't need these additional features in your photographic workflow, that's absolutely fine, but please don't say that an iphone and the XZ-10 are the same thing, because they just aren't!

With the XZ-10 they have put the tiny 1/2.3" sensor instead of the massive 1/1.7" sensor. The 1/2.3" sensor is like a micro dot you know and in the spying days you could put 30 of them on top of the end of a pin. The XZ-10 is half the size of the XZ-2 but you could easily fit a 1/1.7" sensor in it.Like the bridge cameras which easily have aps-c sensor and that would be awesome man, they only do not use them like because they want to keep their DSLR sales up you know.To have the same aperture on a 1/2.3 sensor as a aps-c would need a lens half a mile wide you know.

Besides the iPhone lacking optical zoom and image stabilization points that others have made above:

The Olympus XZ 10 shoots raw; even if the sensors were the exact same part that fact in itself would make the image quality of the Olympus much better than any iPhone. And since when do iPhone cameras have real manual exposure controls?

" The XZ-10 is half the size of the XZ-2 but you could easily fit a 1/1.7" sensor in it."

Really? How do you know? Are you an engineer who works in the camera industry? Terada explained it and said that they would not have been able to put a 1/1.7'' sensor in the body of the XZ-10 while retaining the same lens brightness. Do we have to trust you more than him? If so, please explain... I don't think Oly is so stupid, if it would have been possible of course they'd have used a bigger sensor!

"Like the bridge cameras which easily have aps-c sensor"

Oh, come on! Did you ever see how big the lens in a bridge camera is? And how slow it is? And did you compare the lens of the Sony RX100 with this? To use a bigger sensor, Sony had to make a lens which is f/5.9 at zoom end. You may choose what you prefer: big camera, big sensor and slow lens, or smaller sensor and bright lens. If the XZ-10 is not what you're looking for there are alternatives.

Richard, I do see your point, but I'm not yet ready to sell my 4/3rds DSLR stuff and buy micro 4/3rds. There will come a day when the EVF is superior to the optical finder. It already has many advantages, but I wouldn't call it superior just yet, especially if shooting action.

I think EVF has lots of advantages over OVF but I can live with none. some people find it funny shooting with a iPad but that's by far the more natural way we can shoot photos instead of peering into a small hole.

An OVF shows the scene as your eye and brain sees it (or a percentage of it anyway), an EVF shows the scene as the sensor sees it. Which of the two will end up getting captured? And that is assuming you have a through-the-lens OVF in a DSLR, and not a separate OVF with its own lens, where you have to guess even more...

The way Olympus charges premiums on lens hood, black version lens and has been reluctant to offer black lenses may suggest it is quite a arrogant company, I would be careful to buy into their system. Thankfully, Micro 4/3 has other contributing companies to make the system attractive.

I have to admit though, Olympus has better know-how about lenses, good looking lenses too (even better in black in my opinion)!

A black version lens will always be more expensive if it is not being made in the same quantities as a silver lens. As for lens hoods they have never been free when they came with a lens. Their cost is built into the overall price. Admittedly it is going to cost more to market it as a separate item though.

So, why continue develop 43rd? A total waste of resources! I would never buy a 43rd cam, but I got an OM-D. The only reason was small size and weight. If 43rd were the only choice I'd stick with a standard DSLR. For me, to abandon DSLR completely, the next OM-D must not be larger and heavier than the current model and needs serious improvement in high ISO and cont. AF performance! And 20+ MP would be great.

You may consider it a waste of resources, while others may and do not. There is more than just body or lens size and megapixel count to consider in a system, there is the end result of a quality picture that displays the benefits of the system and the eye of the photographer. Many systems out there can reach that end result, and many of those systems you, and likely others, will not like. I may not care for one system or another, but I have seen the results than human skill applied to a technology can produce, and in the end, that is the joy in photography, whatever the source.

I did not buy my E-3 because it was compact - I bought it because it was just the right size and had many useful buttons available without being able to press any of them by accident.

Then I added a grip and realized I was sorely mistaken, because only with the grip is the E-3 the right size.

I don't want a compact DSLR. I want a big E-7 that can use my existing grip (or has one built-in), I want it to be heavy, sturdy, reliable and a confidence-inspiring workhorse that I can beat a wild bear with if it attacks me. I can buy an E-720 or an E-M5 if I want more compact.

I've been happily and patiently hanging onto 4/3 and my many lenses, and the only thing that can push me away is a small camera body. If they screw up by making the E-7 small, I'll have to switch systems, despite considering a 3:2 aspect ratio with a 1.5x crop factor to be the spawn of Satan (135 "full frame" being Satan itself).

So you don´t mind if a DSLR is bigger, you just want it to be solid built. So why do you want to stick with 4/3 sensor? Every manufactures of DSLRs can offer you something better: Pentax, Canon, Nikon or Sony.I have never understood the meaning of E-5: as big as fullframe: http://j.mp/TpjcWH but with worse image quality than APSC.

The attraction of four thirds is that the lens can be better quality and smaller than those for larger sensors. I switched from FT to FF and then to MFT. I miss the FT lenses, they were the best I have ever used.

I think you've missed the point. No, he wants an E7! The Olympus lenses & the format size is ideal. A Nikon D4 reqires even bigger lenses & they'ed have to be bought on top instead of using the lovely Olympus lenses he already has.

After my initial E400 a couple years ago, I tried a Canon 600D and a few EFS lenses. Later on I invested on a E30 to bring fairness to the dispute. After a year or so, I sold all my Canon/EFS gear and invested in a few more new and used gear for FT and MFT (E500, E620, E5 and EM-5 & a substantial set of HG lens). IMHO, each body/lens suits for different occasions and motivation, but these two complementary systems offer an unique and unbeatable combination of cost, build quality, picture quality and weight. This no to mention what I consider the diamond of their crown: Zuiko and (why not) Panny (Leica branded) lens. I still believe FT/MFT users will leave many Canikon FF users very jealous as soon as Oly launches their E-5 or E-30 sucessor... But don't worry! Although you'll still need to pay more for good quality lens, you'll benefit from having both vendors forced to accelerate their 'enthusiast DSLRs' roadmap with more cheaper FF bodies like the D600 and 6D...

Starting October 1st, Getty Images will no longer accept images in which the models have been Photoshopped to "look thinner or larger." The change was made due to a French law that requires disclosure of such images.

A court ruling our of Newton, Massachusetts has set an important legal precedent for drone pilots: federal drone laws will now trump local drone regulations in situations where the two are in conflict.

macOS High Sierra came out today, but if you use a Wacom tablet you need to wait a few weeks before you upgrade. According to Wacom, they won't have a compatible driver ready for you until "late October."

Vitec, the company that owns popular accessory maker Manfrotto, has just acquired JOBY and Lowepro for a cool $10.3 million in cash. The acquisition adds JOBY and Lowepro to Vitec's already sizable collection of camera gear brands.

A veteran photojournalist, Rick Wilking secured a spot in the path of totality for the August solar eclipse. While things didn't quite pan out as predicted, an unexpected subject in the sky and a quick reaction made for a once-in-a-lifetime shot.